5 ms·
To be fair, I suspect that content blockers aren't puzzled as to why you would want to block ads. What they're trying to do is make it feel morally/ethically un
by x1798DE 11y ago
To be fair, I suspect that content blockers aren't puzzled as to why you would want to block ads. What they're trying to do is make it feel morally/ethically unacceptable to block ads.
This is an example of them failing to live up to their role in the their preferred moral order (i.e. "you don't have to block our ads out of safety concerns because we'll safeguard them for you").
- 0x0 11y agoExactly. Adblocking is almost more important than regular antivirus these days. Arguing against adblocking while serving ads from third party networks with unverified javascript is like arguing that running antivirus software is morally wrong.
- viraptor 11y agoI completely agree everyone should be blocking ads for security, but this comparison is not right. Antivirus should already protect you from many known javascript-based malware. The difference is that antivirus will block (some of) the attacks being executed and let ads through. Adblock will block both normal ads and malware. That's why nobody ever argued that running antivirus is morally wrong.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> Adblock will block both normal ads and malware. Normal ads are malware for the brain. It's just that this type of malware is legal and considered by many to be a respectable occupation.
- pjc50 11y agoPeople have argued against running antivirus: the desktop advertising industry. This is why "antivirus" and "antimalware" are separate products. This is the murky world of the "potentially unwanted program" (PUP). e.g. http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/05/sourceforge-grabs-gimp-for-windows-account-wraps-installer-in-bundle-pushing-adware/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/05/sour...
- viraptor 11y agoI'm sure there are people who'd like you not to run AV. But the link you presented does not mention anything about them arguing "that running antivirus is morally wrong."
- cbd1984 11y agoI don't recall them saying anything about the safety of ads one way or the other. Their arguments seem to center around calling things theft and restating the thesis that if their ad revenue dries up, their content does as well. The safety or lack thereof of advertising isn't mentioned. It isn't part of the narrative they want everyone discussing. This is more like Banquo's ghost: Something they hoped everyone would forget which comes back to haunt them. Out, out, damned spots indeed.